America Owes A Debt of Gratitude to Mr. Trump (Really)

America owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Trump for showing us who we really are and how fragile many of our cherished democratic institutions are. But that’s not the only reason. And we ignore his gift of this insight only at our own peril.

In a few days, when Joe Biden takes the oath of office as the 46th President of the United States, virtually all of America will be focused on the future:  Over half will be anxious to move on, and a significant portion of the other half will be seething and trying to undermine the new administration and regain power.  In that milieu, it will be difficult to acknowledge the debt of gratitude all Americans owe Mr. Trump.

This statement may surprise some of the more liberal elements of our political society, and certainly all Democrats.  Although most Republicans will continue to think as they have for the past four years, that all honor and praise is due Mr. Trump, they, too, might be surprised at what he actually should be appreciated for: he has showed Americans who we really are.  As in the famous story of “The Emperor Has No Clothes,” Mr. Trump has been the little boy shouting out to the emperor, i.e., the polity of United States. 

Just four short years ago, Mr. Trump was elected by promising to be norm-smashing, convention-breaking, tradition-flouting, rule-busting and precedent-defying in order to “shake things up.” He portrayed himself as the antithesis of the “typical politician.”  That appealed to many voters, fed up with what they saw as “business as usual” in Washington D.C.  Fair enough.  But, during these four years in power, he has continually demonstrated that he is also dignity-offending, courtesy-ignoring, rule-scoffing, etiquette-spurning, and custom-destroying. In doing so, Mr. Trump has also clearly shown each and every American, regardless of political persuasion, just how many of our democratic institutions – indeed, the very underpinnings of our Republic – are based not so much on actual law as most of us assumed, but rather on 244 years of those very norms, conventions, traditions, rules, precedents, dignity, courtesies, etiquette, and customs. These practices have been respected for so long that the American people have been lulled into a false sense of security based on our (now naïve) assumption that they would always be followed – and critical to our American political structure, that there would be some consequences if they weren’t.  Mr. Trump has demonstrated just how quickly our 244 years of history could be turned on its head with impunity: less than four years. 

But Mr. Trump’s behavior and actions – and a large swath of the public’s response to it -have shown us something else of equal importance: that America is made up of three broad groups of people, not defined by race, religious persuasion, gender, region, economic class or even party affiliation. Rather, these three groups cut across all the previous categories.  They are “the educated,” “the ignorant,” and “the stupid.”


Now, some definitions are in order.  Keep in mind, these categories define and apply to the entire political and voting spectrum with no one entity having a monopoly in any one category.  “Educated” does not mean “someone with a college degree.”  A college degree is simply a document that states you have mastered some kind of knowledge within a certain field, not that you are well-educated in all things.  “Educated” does mean knowing what truth and facts are, and knowing what facts you need to make a decision.  It is also knowing what you don’t know, and then objectively pursuing facts and knowledge to learn more, not just within a specified field, but in life.  For an “educated person” continually pursues truth and knowledge as part of a lifelong process of “broadening of their mind.” That does not require a degree.  It requires an open mind and curiosity.  It requires the intellectual abilities to discern and verify facts; to understand complex problems and complicated solutions; to deconstruct arguments; and to express ideas rationally and logically with well-constructed fact-based opinions. In other words, one must be capable of complex thoughts and rational analysis. 

“Ignorance,” on the other hand, is neither a pejorative term nor an insult.  It simply means you don’t know something because it’s outside your sphere of knowledge or expertise.  It is really a component of wisdom in that, when self-recognized, drives people to become knowledgeable, and thus more educated.  Self-recognition and the drive to become knowledgeable, however, does not confer expertise or mastery, as any one of us who might have studied calculus or music theory or a foreign language might tell you.  A few of the gifted may be able to master the subject and grasp complexities and complicated nuances, but the rest will probably only come away with just an appreciation of the subject matter or perhaps a basic understanding, enough to grasp key concepts and follow along in a discussion as long as it’s kept simple enough. 

When ignorance is unrecognized, however, it leads to the state of stupidity.  Simply put, these people are not just ignorant: they don’t even know they are ignorant, and confoundingly, are absolutely convinced that they actually are knowledgeable. Therefore, they seek no further information or understanding. Nor can they even conceive that there are valid opposing arguments, let alone that they themselves could be wrong, both of which preclude any possibility of discussion, compromise or realistic solutions.

In a ground-breaking 1999 study demonstrating the critical factors underlying the phenomenon of “stupid,” psychologists Dunning & Kruger studied why large groups of people are incapable of understanding their own limitations. In essence, as they put it, “…if you’re incompetent, you don’t know you’re incompetent …”  People experiencing this problem are sometimes colloquially referred to as “sitting atop Mount Stupid.”  (Or as Forrest Gump famously put it, “Stupid is as stupid does.”  We can get a glimpse of this in the infamous annual “Darwin Awards.”) The Dunning-Kruger Effect states that the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is in the first place – and these people don’t have it.


Applying that to politics, we do have a large group of educated voters in the United States.  These people have political knowledge; they know what they know and don’t know; they seek out facts, they know what facts are and have the will and ability to discern when alleged “facts” are false.  They are capable of rational analysis, and come to a position for or against something or someone based on that fact-filled, rational discernment process.  Yet that same process might lead one educated person to reach a different conclusion from another.  That’s OK because new facts or revised assumptions might also persuade them to reevaluate their positions and change their minds.  That’s what the intellectual and scientific process is all about.

We also have the politically ignorant people.  These people have limited political knowledge, are easily confused by too much detail or have difficulty discerning factual statements from conjecture and unfounded accusations. It is hard for them to understand complex issues or comprehend complicated solutions.  But they are aware that they don’t have all the information and they seek it.  They want and need to be reassured by educated and factually-informed sources in simple, easy-to-understand terms that will help them make their decisions on issues. That simple, easy-to-understand requisite means that they can more easily be persuaded – or duped or even cajoled – into making choices by simple, well-crafted messaging.  (Candidate Trump won, in large part, because he knew exactly how to refine his messages in simple terms that would resonate with this group of voters in the 2016 election. Candidate Clinton never did figure out how to do this.)

Then sadly, there are the virtually irredeemably stupid people.  This group also includes racists and the full spectrum of fanatics, conspiracy theorists and hate-filled anarchists.  They have little or no knowledge of facts and do not even know the opinions they hold are based on falsehoods that they have accepted as true because they are unable to discern factual statements from conjecture and unfounded accusations. 

The irredeemably stupid are not capable of logical analysis and are taken in by spurious ideology and conspiracy theories that cannot withstand even the most basic rational critique but which instead appeal viscerally to their emotions.  There is no intellectual or empathetic component to their consciousness. There is only primitive gut-level yearning for an over-simplified solution to an over-simplified problem because of the underlying suspiciousness that “complexities” only obfuscate the truth from them.  Ironically, they are correct, but not for the reasons they suspect. 

And despite their frequent bravado, these irrational simpletons are really just sheep – sheep primed for the right orator to mobilize them to his or her own ends.  It is the objective writ large in every presumptive dictator’s playbook.  


So what is it we need to be grateful to Mr. Trump for?  It is not the knowledge that these three groups exist in America – that was already widely known. But, at least for the educated group, Mr. Trump has exposed – and inarguably proven – that these other two groups are vastly bigger and more widespread than they ever imagined.  Worse, the irredeemably stupid themselves now know this and feel empowered.  Going forward, then, the educated among us can ignore this invaluable insight from Mr. Trump only at their own peril – and that of our country.  For this, and for exposing the fragility of our American democracy, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Trump.

Courting and Coercing “The Catholic Vote” in America

The reality of the Catholic Church’s Social Teachings as stated clearly by Pope Francis and the U.S. Conference of Bishops is that neither of the two major party candidates for President is completely in step with the Catholic Church, and so Catholic voters, after careful discernment, should form their individual consciences based on the full breadth of these teachings and avoid casting votes through the lens of a single issue.  Anyone saying that it is a “sin” to vote for one candidate over another is either misunderstanding Catholic teaching, misrepresenting it, or both.

Courting and Coercing “The Catholic Vote” in America

The Struggle for the Catholic Vote in America

The concept of “Separation of Church and State” may be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but “religion” is one of the top media headlines around the world when reporting on the U.S. elections this year.  Of particular note is the attention given to “the Catholic vote” and its logic-defying subtext of support for a president who is fundamentally against virtually all Catholic values except one, and who in 2016 openly clashed with Pope Francis.  This is in contrast to demonstrably deeply religious, weekly Mass-attending Catholic Joe Biden.

The international community is understandably confused. “So, Biden is Catholic, but why are Catholics voting against him and for Trump?  What happened to make them to think this way?”

Much of the analysis and many recent articles have done a worthy job of identifying and documenting the fact of this phenomenon – Catholics voting for Trump – but without explaining exactly what brought the majority of them to think this way.

We know from post-election data analysis of the 2016 Trump victory/Clinton loss showed that the “Catholic Vote” tipped the Electoral College in Trump’s favor in three key Great Lakes states with large Catholic populations – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump won each of those states by narrow margins, but with strong Catholic support, especially among white Catholics, and almost solely as a result of Trump’s anti-abortion rhetoric and Clinton’s support for “pro-choice.”  

As Professor Ryan P. Burge writes in Christianity Today, “to win re-election (in 2020,) Trump might be able to afford to lose some evangelical votes, but he definitely cannot afford to lose Catholic votes.”  A recent New York Times article by Katie Glueck Trump and Biden Court Catholic Vote, in Very Different Ways does a good job of showing how the two candidates are courting the Catholic constituency, highlighting that “abortion” is again a critical factor. 

Mark Markuly, Dean of the School of Theology and Ministry, Seattle University, wrote an op-ed piece in the Seattle Times recently entitled, God help us: Religion’s influence on the 2020 presidential election, which comes closest to identifying the underlying answer when he quotes Warren A. Nord, author of “Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma” as saying that “a deeply religious culture like America puts itself in peril when it becomes simultaneously religiously uninformed.”

Religiously Uninformed & Misinformed

Putting it all together then, it’s obvious that the answer to why there is large Catholic support for Trump is “abortion.” The explanation of what is causing this single issue to sway so many Catholic votes, however, is exactly what Nord warns about: being “uninformed.”  It is because of the gross misunderstanding by almost the same number of these Catholics of the reality of the Catholic Church’s official teaching on “Pro-Life.”

Pope Francis through his addresses, the Catholic Church through its documents, the US Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) through their directives, such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenshiphave all said officially – repeatedly – that candidates and issues must be evaluated in the full context of Catholic Social Teaching.

Forming Consciences states that Catholics are encouraged to form their consciences based on the breadth of Catholic Social Teaching and to avoid casting votes through the lens of one issue.   

The USCCB’s Forming Consciences details at great length the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching, and frames it against how Catholics need to evaluate not only the issues of the day but the candidates as well.  It is a 46-page tome more along the lines of a theological treatise, and, understandably, many Catholics have not read it.  Many Bishops have not explained it well to their faithful nor to their priests.

That wouldn’t be a problem except that for some time now, some lay Catholic groups and organizations (and even some priests), supported by some Catholic radio stations and websites, have usurped the voice and authority of the Church and have claimed – falsely – that their interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching, which hinges on usually just one part of one aspect of “Pro-Life” Catholic Social Teaching – usually abortion – is the only lens by which all candidates and issues must be judged. 

These groups and their supporters have portrayed the Church’s teachings as a stack-ranked order of weighted priority to make it appear that it is the Church’s teaching that only one part of one teaching – being anti-abortion – outweighs all others. In this way, their simple messaging aims to convince Catholic voters (as well as voters of other faith persuasions) that voting for a candidate who is in line with every other Catholic Social Teaching except being pro-choice is a mortally sinful act, but voting for a candidate who stands against every Catholic Social Teaching but at least verbally supports anti-abortion initiatives, is the only holy choice. (Again, while this is what they claim, according to the Catholic Church, this is patently false and tantamount to spiritual bullying and coercion.)

Silence of the Lambs

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, in wanting to appear politically neutral and only speaking through published statements and documents, has inadvertently continued to enable these lay groups to rise up and purport to “speak for the Church” by virtue of identifying themselves as “Catholic.”  For many Catholics in the pews (and non-Catholics as well) who hear these distorted messages and false threats of damnation, it seems like this is the authoritative voice of the Church because it is loud and goes unchallenged.  However, it is not the authoritative voice of the Church. 

For Catholics who don’t care and make up their own minds one way or the other, or who understand what the Church actually teaches and make up their own minds after careful discernment, this is not a problem.  But for Catholics who are ignorant of what their Church actually teaches but who want to follow what they think their Church teaches – and there are many as has been well documented – they have been deliberately misled by these groups. This has resulted into their being confused as to what to do, and finally, being cajoled and browbeaten by false claims of “mortal sin” and damnation unless they vote a certain way.  Perhaps to put it more accurately, if not more colorfully, paraphrasing one of Rick’s famous lines in Casablanca, “they’ve been misinformed.”

This is how large groups of well-meaning, religious Catholics have defied logic and their own faith’s teachings and been able to sway presidential elections.  

Some priests are finally speaking up to counter this problem with the truth about Catholic Teaching and voting.  Fr. Michael Ryan, influential Pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle, the seat of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, writes eloquently, clearly and specifically, on Oct. 4, 2020 in a brilliant essay to the his parish and the wider community in his “Letter to the Parish”  “…what needs to be acknowledged right up front – is that, when it comes to all of the serious moral issues that make up the body of what is called Catholic Social Teaching – and there are many – neither of the two major party candidates for President is completely in step with the Catholic Church. I’ll say that again: neither of the two candidates for President is completely in step with the teaching of the Catholic Church. For that reason, every Catholic voter is required to do some serious study and some serious soul-searching – study that involves learning as much as possible about Catholic moral and social teaching in all its breadth, depth, and complexity; soul-searching that involves the delicate work of conscience which, in the end, is the only path to making an enlightened choice.

…trust me, there is a choice and anyone who says otherwise is either misunderstanding Catholic teaching, misrepresenting it, or both. And that includes the priest from Wisconsin who recently released a video implying that anyone who voted Democratic was going to hell! 

Let me clarify something else. Despite impressions given – sometimes intentionally, sometimes not – the Catholic Church does not endorse candidates for public office. It must not. The Church respects the right and the duty of each of its members to study the issues and to make an informed, conscience-driven decision about which candidate to vote for. This becomes difficult when, as is the case with the upcoming election, neither candidate nor political party can make the claim to be “pro-life” in the full, rich sense in which the Church understands that term. 

Can we get an “amen” to that?

The Sin of Coercion

Until the real authoritative body of the Catholic Church (the same one that would quickly and loudly disavow and crush lay and clergy voices interpreting Church teaching to promote, say, married priests or women priests, or same-sex marriage, for example) steps up and takes control of managing its own message in a clear, easy to understand way, like Fr. Ryan’s letter, this confounding contradiction of Catholic voting patterns will continue. Worse, the intense personal confusion forced upon Catholic voters by the Church itself, will persist.  Catholics need to be told in no uncertain terms by their Church’s highest authorities – the bishops and archbishops – in unison, that they are free.  Free to choose.  Free to vote.  Free to form their own consciences and make decisions as Catholics based on discernment from the fullness of Catholic Social Teaching, and not to be coerced by any Catholic groups claiming that only their particular cause célèbre matters or that a vote for a certain candidate other than theirs is somehow a “sin.” That falsehood is directly against the teaching and instruction of the Church. When we come to that point, where Catholics understand, as Fr. Ryan put it, “as much as possible about Catholic moral and social teaching in all its breadth, depth, and complexity,” candidates will be forced to spout more than just a one word battle cry and hope to “capture the Catholic vote.” 

In the end, after careful reflection and prayer, guided by this knowledge that they are free to discern taking into account the entire context of Catholic Social Teachings, individual Catholics may come to a conclusion to vote for one candidate over the other for different reasons involving their conscience and heart.  That’s OK. That’s democracy.  That is also true spiritual discernment.  But coming to that conclusion by any other means is nothing short of spiritual coercion and bullying and that, in no uncertain terms, is a sin. 


Sources cited in this article:

  1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
  2. Firing a Salvo in Culture Wars, Trump Pushes for Churches to Reopen
  3. Donald Trump Fires Back at Sharp Rebuke by Pope Francis
  4. Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching
  5. Trump and Biden Court Catholic Vote, in Very Different WaysKatie Glueck, September 25, 2020
  6. God help us: Religion’s influence on the 2020 presidential election, Mark Makuly October 12, 2020,
  7. “Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma”, Warren A. Nord
  8.  “Letter to the Parish”, Fr. Michael Ryan, October 4, 2020,
  9. Civilize It: Dignity Beyond The Debate
  10. Pope Francis urges bishops to teach Catholics discernment on voting and politics

A Hard Look at the Cold Facts about the Korean Peninsula Situation

The world’s eyes are now focused on Korea, not only because of the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, but also because of the volatile U.S.- North Korean politics surrounding it. The frozen faces in the photographs of American leaders when in proximity to North Korean counterparts are most definitely not the … Continue reading


Continuing from last month’s column, here are the last six of the ten essential points of using “International English.” 5) Avoid negative questions/ tag questions. English is somewhat unusual in that the framing of this kind of question doesn’t really impact the answer; it merely reflects the speaker’s guess at … Continue reading